If I were presented a very large pile of money, a large consensus and the task of changing that consensus (in order to stop changes that might cost me a very ve

If I were presented a very large pile of money, a large consensus and the task of changing that consensus (in order to stop changes that might cost me a very very large pile of money), I would fund both. The goal doesn't have to be changing everyone's minds. The "moderate" voices actually hold a great swaying power in this situation. If you fund the extreme opposite to give them volume, you now have a base to provide "reasonable" voices (that you also fund) the power to say things like: "lets not make rash decisions - lets study it more" "Reactionary policy is awful - lets instead migrate to it slowly" "Let's question the shady underworld of the consensus" "Let's compromise"